Bill Overview
Title: ARMAS Act of 2022
Description: This bill (1) requires the Department of State to report to Congress on federal efforts to disrupt the illegal export or diversion of firearms from the United States to countries in North America, South America, and the Caribbean; (2) requires the State Department and the Department of Commerce to jointly develop an inter-agency strategy for the disruption of the trafficking of firearms exported from the United States to such countries; and (3) requires the Commerce Department to submit an annual report on the export of firearms to such countries. The bill also limits the Commerce Department from issuing export licenses for covered firearms until notifying Congress of the proposed transaction.
Sponsors: Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]
Target Audience
Population: People in North America, South America, and the Caribbean
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The bill targets illegal export and diversion of firearms from the USA to North America, South America, and the Caribbean.
- This bill impacts citizens in the USA by potentially reducing the occurrence of firearm trafficking and related offenses.
- Citizens in countries in North America, South America, and the Caribbean may be affected by reduced illegal firearm imports.
- Improving monitoring and strategy to counter illegal export of firearms could enhance safety and security in the targeted regions.
Reasoning
- The policy targets illegal arms export, which directly impacts those involved in legal and illegal arms trade.
- The people most affected might be those working in firearm manufacturing or export due to changes in compliance and monitoring.
- General US citizens might not feel a direct effect but could experience a sense of increased security.
- Illegal arms trafficking often correlates with violence; thus, an effective policy could reduce crime rates.
- Monitoring and regulation might not meaningfully impact the daily lives of most Americans, leading to 'none' in impact for many.
- Budget constraints limit the scale of interventions, focusing efforts rather than applying nationwide.
- Given a huge target population, the policy aims to curb broader patterns of illicit trade rather than individual behaviors.
- It's likely there will be political and public opinion debates, influencing perceptions of effectiveness.
Simulated Interviews
Firearm Manufacturer (Texas)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as more regulation, which could add to costs and operational hurdles.
- If it effectively reduces illegal trade, it could benefit the industry by legitimizing legal trade further.
- Initial compliance might be challenging, but with adaptation, the impact could moderate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Law Enforcement Officer (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should strengthen our efforts against illegal trafficking, which is a persistent issue.
- Resource allocation and strategy improvement could enhance our effectiveness.
- Success depends on how well agencies collaborate and enforce.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Customs Broker (Florida)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased monitoring might mean more paperwork for me.
- As someone who facilitates legal exports, this policy should ideally target illegal routes.
- I hope it doesn't slow down legitimate business with lengthy procedures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Human Rights Advocate (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my advocacy goals to reduce gun violence.
- Immediate results might not be visible, but long-term safety improvements are necessary.
- I hope this leads to less weapon-related violence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Gun Shop Owner (Illinois)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For my business, this doesn't change much because I'm already compliant.
- Illegal trade negative impacts aren't significant here, but overall security benefits could help.
- It's another step to differentiate legitimate businesses from illegal trade actions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
College Student (Arizona)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is potentially a positive development for international relations.
- Reduced illegal firearms can lead to better diplomatic ties in the Americas.
- It plays a role in the broader framework of reducing violence worldwide.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Policy Analyst (Washington)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act offers a progressive step toward curbing illegal arms flows.
- Inter-agency cooperation looks good on paper but proves the biggest challenge in execution.
- Ensuring accountability and transparency could be key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Factory Worker (Ohio)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Honestly, this policy feels distant from my daily life.
- If there's any indirect benefit, like increased security, that's a plus.
- I'm more concerned about economic issues directly impacting my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Journalist (Michigan)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ARMAS Act could lead to important stories on transparency and accountability.
- Potential for reduced crime rates makes it more than just an abstract policy for citizens.
- Coverage might focus on both positive aspects and unintended consequences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Military Officer (Tennessee)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having seen the impact of both legal and illegal arms, stricter control is generally advantageous.
- Policy could be a meaningful step towards more comprehensive security strategies.
- Impact on veterans like me mainly comes from a safety perspective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $4500000 (Low: $2700000, High: $6300000)
Year 3: $4750000 (Low: $2880000, High: $6650000)
Year 5: $5250000 (Low: $3150000, High: $7350000)
Year 10: $5750000 (Low: $3450000, High: $8050000)
Year 100: $8000000 (Low: $4800000, High: $11200000)
Key Considerations
- The effective collaboration between the State Department and the Commerce Department is essential for the success of this act.
- International cooperation and the response from the firearm industry might influence the act's outcomes.
- Long-term savings and GDP impacts depend significantly on the success of reducing firearm trafficking.